GERMANY EDITION

June 15, 2010

Dear Friends:

The last two weeks have been anything but peaceful. The American Jewish
community has been all but totally consumed with the Gaza blockade affair and
its aftermath. While (as noted below) the vast majority has not only backed Israel,
they felt that the Turkish IHH members on the boat where the violence took place
were there for a reason – to start trouble – which they did. The ensuing rush to
judgment by much of the world’s political leaders and the condemnation of Israel
from almost all sides was felt to be biased and unfair. Not unusual, however. It
happens all the time. Israel always seems to be held to some sort of higher
degree of conduct than any other nation. It does make one wonder why.

Unfair or not, there is no question that the Netanyahu government took a big
negative hit internationally and is in the process of altering its blockade policy.
Whether one approves or disapproves of the policy, for better or for worse, the
IHH scored a diplomatic victory by getting Egypt to open up its Gaza crossing,
eliciting international calls for an inquiry and, forcing Israel to relax its naval
blockade somewhat.

Of course not all American Jews agree with Israeli policies. The one group of
dissenters that worries us most are the young people. The separation between
American Jewish youth and Israel is very troubling. A very important article on
the subject recently appeared in The New York Review of Books by one Peter
Beinart. I am going to give you the opportunity to read it (click here) and, as you
will see, the issue is very complicated – too complicated for me to cover in this
edition which is already too long. I promise to go into it in the next one.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-
establishment/

So, let’s get on to the news…

IN THIS EDITION

THE GAZA EPISODE – Some thoughts on the matter – mostly personal.

AMERICAN JEWISH OPINION – Especially on the left.

EGYPT – What was their role? Do they get a “bye”?

TURKEY – What’s in it for them? Try hegemony.

THE GERMAN PRESIDENCY – “President Who?” For most Americans only the

1
Chancellor is important. But not for a Washington Post editorial writer.

THE GAZA EPISODE

I will not overload you repeating all the overheated rhetoric about the Gaza boat
episode which I’m sure most of you read about in your local newspapers. There
are a lot of conflicting stories about what happened and how it started but there is
no debate over the fact that nine people got killed. No matter what your thoughts,
you have to feel terrible that deaths resulted. I wish to add my own condolences
to the families of the deceased. It doesn’t make any difference how, and under
what circumstances, the loss of a family member takes place. It is always tragic
and a deep loss for the ones left behind.

By and large (almost universally) the organized Jewish community in the U.S.
strongly supported the Israeli position that the Free Gaza boats, refusing to off
load their supplies in either an Israeli or Egyptian port (more on that below) for
overland transporting to Gaza, were not as interested in helping the people of
Gaza directly as they we in making some sort of a political statement.

I wonder how many of the 600 plus protestors on the boat knew that. Did the
more idealistic among them understand that running a blockade was serious
military business and not some nice sit down demonstration somewhere where
they would be arrested, locked up for a little while and then released so they
could be feted as heroes? I wonder whether the organizers even raised the
possibility of physical harm with them. My guess is that the radicals doing the
organizing never mentioned it or “fudged” the issue, only thinking that the more
cannon fodder they had (in the way of human fodder) the better things would go
for them when the provocation began. They were 100% correct.

Some critics of the Israel action have tried to make the case that the protestors
should be considered in the same light as those who participated in the sit-downs
and civil disobedience led by Martin Luther King that took place in the U. S. in the
1960’s. As a participant (in my youth) in a couple of those demonstrations never
was there the use of sticks, crowbars, slingshots or anything that could even
remotely be considered a weapon against those enforcing even a bad law. That
did not seem to be the case with the blockade protestors. Granted, they did not
have guns, but from almost all reports, the protestors did not sit down and take
whatever blows were coming their way in order to make a moral point. Whether
they started the violence or not, they participated, and, at least in my opinion,
forfeited the right to claim any kind of moral superiority. Though I doubt we will
ever know the objective truth, but if, indeed, they started the violence they should
be condemned for putting the lives of their fellow protestors in harms way and
have to take some responsibility for the nine deaths.

Incidentally, actually not so incidentally, on June 5th a second blockade runner

2
was stopped by the Israeli military. In this case the participants were not violent
and did not offer resistance. The boat was taken into custody and towed to
Ashdod from where the relief supplies were shipped overland. No armed
resistance. No trouble. No casualties. It’s hard to believe that in the first flotilla
there was not a plan for violence. .

AMERICAN JEWISH OPINION

While (as above) the vast majority of American Jews strongly supported the
position of Israel in the Gaza matter, it was certainly not unanimous. Even among
the strong supporters there was criticism about the means used by the Israeli
military and, perhaps more important – the ultimate aim of the blockade. The
Forward, America’s most important Jewish journal, noted “Although a full and
legitimate investigation needs to take place, it seems so far that Israel had a
legal right to board the ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza, and that
Israeli commandos fell into a horrifying ambush by so-called peace activists. The
cry of self-defense here seems warranted.

But these technical justifications cannot obscure the deeper impression that the
Netanyahu government continues to dangerously misread the challenges it
faces. It used to be wryly noted that the Palestinians never missed an
opportunity to miss an opportunity. Sadly, that now seems true of the current
Israeli leadership — and just at the moment when it’s necessary to take bold
steps, to try to solve problems rather than suppress them, to break the cycle of
failure, to do what entrepreneurs do: innovate.

As long as there is an Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza, Israel alone will be

blamed for the churning misery of Gaza’s citizens. It isn’t fair. It allows the
terrorists of Hamas to escape responsibility and propagandists to exploit the
issue. But even if the Israeli government is accurate in its claims that the three-
year-long restrictions weakened Hamas internally, they harm Israel externally.
(And that was before the Hamas’ latest PR coup.) It’s time to devise another way
to prevent arms smuggling and secure Israel’s borders without depriving 1.5
million people of food, medical care, construction materials and commerce.

I would have to expand this newsletter to 50 pages or more to give you even a
hint of all the shades of opinion in and out of the Jewish community on the Gaza
incident. I understand heated rhetoric in a heated situation but I think it is not
unfair to expect some form of even handed response from what are supposed to
be, responsible individuals and organizations. Frankly, I didn’t always find it.

For instance…

In my last newsletter I spoke about the formation of a left of center Jewish

lobbying group in Europe called, J-Call, I indicated that it was a parallel
organization to J-Street in the U.S. which I referred to as “center left”. One of my

3
readers wrote to me saying that, in his opinion, J-Street was plain “left” and not
center at all. The day after the Gaza boat event I went into the J-Street website to
see what they had to say. There was a lot of stuff about “peace’ and a “two state
solution” but nowhere did I find anything that even mentioned “provocation”. They
claim to be “pro-Israel” but I couldn’t find anything to which I would affix that
label. I couldn’t find anything critical of Hamas or their terrorism.
“Evenhandedness” was nowhere to be found.

I don’t like terms such as “leftist”, “rightist” or even “centrist” even though
sometimes they are necessary to place people, organizations, etc. on a spectrum
so that their positions can be understood. I don’t know where J-Street fits.
However, I would affix the term “biased”. Yes, there is a lot of “peace’ babble and
claims of being pro-Israel. I find, all too often, that “do-gooders” who claim to be
non-violent work out their feelings of hostility through words rather than violent
acts. Perhaps the Soviet peace groups of the last century who professed “peace”
but truthfully had another agenda have soured me on those pushing the peace
agenda. I am reminded of the African warrior tribe that started their attacks
against their enemies with the cry “Peace unto you”. They meant the peace of
death. I don’t think J-Street or any of the Middle East peace groups in the U.S. (I
won’t speak for those in the Middle East) are in favor of death. However, it seems
to me that J-Street’s utterances about being pro-Israel put the meaning of “pro” in
conflict with what the word normally is understood to mean.

EGYPT

While I’m on the subject of the Gaza blockade, let me say a few words about
Egypt.

Normally, when there is a story about Gaza, hidden away in the 4th or 5th
paragraph is the fact that the Egypt is also part of the blockade process even
though they have recently opened their border. It is almost as if they have been
some sort of passive participant with little to do with it. That, of course, is not the
case at all. As Spiegel On-Line points out, “Egypt, the other nation adjacent to
Gaza, keeps its border closed most of the time. (The border did open for
humanitarian aid this week, after the naval raid.) The administration in Cairo
worries that a perceived Hamas success in Gaza will only inflame Egypt's own
radical Islamists' fantasies of political power.

There is no question that the people in Gaza are living in a deplorable situation
and the Hamas leaders are willing to do almost anything in order to prove a
political point. In addition, the help that does get through, according to Spiegel
On-Line, goes to the Hamas party backers and is not distributed evenly. Click
here to read about it.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,698766,00.html#ref=nlint

But that’s not the whole story. Palestinians all over the Arab world live in “refugee

4
camps”. The host countries, for their own political purposes, have refused to
allow them entry into their own societies. Anti-Israel politics have proven a good
way to shift the focus away from their own shortcomings as governments. Some
Palestinian families are in the third or fourth generation in these camps (since
1948) with no end in sight. How about a little “do-gooder” action and publicity to
help alleviate the poverty of these people?

On the other hand, Israel, after 1946 and again in 1967, were also met with the
need do something about Jewish refugees who had to leave the Arab countries
to avoid bloodshed. It wasn’t easy but they were almost immediately integrated
into Israeli society and have become active, fully engaged citizens. Some
difference!

So, now you know where I stand.

TURKEY

A question on the minds of many here in the American Jewish community is,
“What sort of responsibility does Turkey bear for what happened during the Gaza
blockade running event?” Until recently Turkey was seen as one of Israel’s allies,
perhaps, the only Muslim country that seemed to have a real working relationship
with Israel. In the last year or two there seemed to be a little bit of friction as
Turkey’s government took a harder Islamic line but it did not seem to threaten the
working arrangements between the two countries. Much of that was put into
question by what happened on the sea off the Gaza coast. Why did Turkey get
so involved?

Germany’s own Josef Joffe has one answer. He wrote in the Financial Times,
“But let us look beyond the Mavi Marmara. Though Israelis and Palestinians get
most of the limelight, much of the script is written elsewhere. The newest entrant
in the larger drama is Turkey, where the flotilla was financed and put to sea.
Ankara’s fierce response to the incident was a rallying cry to the region.

Next to Iran, NATO member Turkey is now the biggest headache for the west.
With Egypt sinking into torpor and Riyadh firmly ensconced on the fence
between Washington and Tehran, Turkey has seen the leadership of the region
up for grabs – and is going for it. It has drawn Syria into its orbit and has reached
a nuclear deal with Iran, its rival for hegemony.

What better way to pursue this end than to lead a crusade against the Jewish
state? Going after the “Little Satan” is the card that trumps them all, and it
embarrasses the “Great Satan” to boot. The real game is about dominance at the
expense of America, which US President Barack Obama has yet to grasp.
Neither has Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Sailing into the Turkish
trap was a blunder worthy of General Custer at Little Big Horn.

5
Joffe might be right and what he has to say might explain Turkey’s role in the
Gaza matter. However, Israel has to live in the same “neighborhood” as Turkey
so their reaction might be muted. However, I don’t believe American Jews will be
so forgiving. And, since we’re talking about unhappiness with Turkey, the
Jerusalem Post reports that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are
not thrilled either. They wrote, “The Palestinian Authority is concerned about
Turkey’s increased support for Hamas, a PA official in Ramallah said on
Monday.

The official said that the PA leadership was “unhappy” with Turkey’s policy
toward Hamas, especially with regard to pressure to lift the blockade on the
Gaza Strip unconditionally. “Turkey’s policy is emboldening Hamas and
undermining the Palestinian Authority,” the official told The Jerusalem Post.

“Of course we want to see the blockade lifted, but Hamas must also end its coup
in the Gaza Strip and accept an Egyptian proposal for achieving reconciliation
with Fatah.”

Elements of the Turkish press see the danger of Turkey’s involvement in the
Gaza matter and its relationship with the IHH, the sponsor of the blockade
runners. The Daily News & Economic Review, which bills itself as Turkey’s
English Daily featured an interesting article which you can read by clicking here.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=much-to-ponder-for-turkey-and-israel-
once-the-dust-settles-2010-06-07

Every action has a reaction so we will have to see whether Turkey continues its
virulent anti-Israel rhetoric and its Islamist direction and, if so, what sort of price
might they have to pay.. Stay tuned!

THE GERMAN PRESIDENCY

The resignation of President Koehler got about as much American press

comment as the resignation of the president of a local synagogue might get here
in my home community. It just wasn’t seen as anything out of the ordinary
(Another government leader resigns after criticism, so what?). Almost nobody
cared nor did anybody (except one columnist) see the underlying importance of
what Koehler had said which caused the criticism and then the resignation.

Ann Applebaum, a noted Washington Post columnist, recently wrote a piece

entitled “Germany’s Dangerous Code of Silence”. She noted that President
Koehler in a speech had said, “"A country of our size, with its focus on exports
and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that . . . military deployments
are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests."

By saying that, “…he broke two major taboos. First, he admitted that the German
military is in Afghanistan for a military purpose, once again undermining the

6
public's firm belief that their soldiers do charity work.

But Koehler's second blunder was worse: By declaring that Germany is a large
country with a large export sector and economic interests around the world,
Koehler broke the even more powerful taboo forbidding German politicians to
speak of any use of the military in any foreign engagement. Germany's passivity
is a matter of national pride, German pacifism is written into its constitution, and
Germans don't talk about themselves as "a country of our size." In polite
company, Germans never, ever talk about using the military "in an emergency to
protect our interests."

Yet as time goes on, as World War II fades into history and as even the Cold
War becomes a distant memory, Germany's conventional way of speaking about
itself is becoming increasingly unreal. Germany is indeed a large country, the
largest in Europe: When Greece got into trouble and the euro had to be bailed
out, it was Germany that made the major decisions and Germany that pushed
hardest for draconian Greek economic reforms. If it all goes wrong, Germany
may well be blamed.

Germany really does have many economic interests outside of Europe, too,
including in several countries that could well present military challenges to the
West someday. Iran - where Germany is one of the largest outside investors --
comes to mind, as do China and Russia. In an Iranian-Israeli fight, would pacifist
Germany stay neutral? What if China attacked Taiwan, or Russia went to war
with Ukraine?

I am not suggesting that any of these conflicts should or will occur, nor would I
necessarily want Germany to join them if they did. I don't want Germany to re-
arm, go to war or even pick fights with anybody, either. But it does seem strange
that the president of a country whose economy depends on exports -- including
exports to authoritarian and militaristic regimes -- is not allowed to ponder aloud
the possible military consequences of its economic policies. Americans
sometimes make the mistake of thinking that every conflict has a military
solution. But it is equally myopic to pretend that no conflict will ever have a
military solution, and dangerous not even to talk about it.

I join Ms. Applebaum in not wanting Germany to become more of a military

power than it already is. However, as pledged to Israel’s security as it is, what
would happen “in an Iranian – Israeli fight”? Would the pledge get watered down
and Germany hide behind its EU connected foreign policy? Would Germany be
willing to put members of the Bundeswehr in “harms way” to fulfill its commitment
to the Jewish State?

Good question. I’d welcome responses. I’ll be glad to print them.

*******************************************************************************************

7
See you again at the end of the month

DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted at
edubow@optonline.net Both the American and Germany editions are also posted on line at
www.dubowdigest.typepad.com.